The Power of the Gospel

[christundivided]

What you believe about the Power of the Gospel?

Lets read what Paul said about it...

Rom 1:16  For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Rom 1:17  For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Now lets stop for minute and read verse 17 again....paying close attention the part I've put in bold.

Rom 1:17  For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

Now a Calvinist will say that no man can respond to the call of the Gospel until he is enlightened by God Himself. Yet, this not what Romans 1:17 teaches. Not at all. Romans 1:16 and 1:17 makes its very clear that the righteousness of God is reveal from Faith to Faith through the Gospel. This truth is witnessed in many other places throughout the Scriptures.

The Gospel is preached by men to men. Men that have expressed faith in God. The Gospel is the Heavenly bridged to humanity. The Gospel speaks of things that unregenerate man can understand. Its preached in terms that have common acceptance among all of humanity. Its not preached in the tongues of angels nor the dialect of Heaven itself. Its preached in the tongues of men. Even appealing to the natural senses of man.

The Calvinist would have you believe there is nothing "natural" about the Gospel. That the Gospel has nothing appealing to the depraved nature of humanity...... when nothing could be further from the truth.

Now

 

[FSSL]

Where does this faith come from?

 

[christundivided]

Where does this faith come from?

From man himself.

Did you pay attention to the "faith to faith" part? Are you saying that God Himself is passing "HIS" faith to another?

 

[FSSL]

From man himself. Did you pay attention to the "faith to faith" part? Are you saying that God Himself is passing "HIS" faith to another?

Hence... our theological disconnect.

Faith is not man induced. If it was, then faith is a work. Paul defines this clearly in Ephesians 2.8 - "and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God."

The phrase "faith to faith" is clumsy. Because it is a difficult phrase with many interpretations. As the NET Bible puts it well... "It may have the idea that this righteousness is obtained by faith (ἐκ πίστεως) because it was designed for faith (εἰς πίστιν)."

No matter the interpretation, faith is ALWAYS a gift from God and not man-induced.

 

[T-Bone]

From man himself. Did you pay attention to the "faith to faith" part? Are you saying that God Himself is passing "HIS" faith to another?

Hence... our theological disconnect.

Faith is not man induced. If it was, then faith is a work. Paul defines this clearly in Ephesians 2.8 - "and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God."

The phrase "faith to faith" is clumsy. Because it is a difficult phrase with many interpretations. As the NET Bible puts it well... "It may have the idea that this righteousness is obtained by faith (ἐκ πίστεως) because it was designed for faith (εἰς πίστιν)."

No matter the interpretation, faith is ALWAYS a gift from God and not man-induced.

I am not a Calvinist...but I agree with this.  I don't believe faith is something man can come up within himself...it is a gift from God, but man has to decide whether to receive that gift or reject that gift.  I must say the nuances of this whole matter is deeper than our finite thinking, so we must keep sharing and trust that God will keep saving.  Other than that I am not really going to be in this conversation. 

Carry on my wayward sons!

 

[rsc2a]

"There is no God."

See.  I can rip random parts of scripture out,  ignore all context, and make it look like it teaches pretty much anything,  too.

 

[Mathew Ward]

"There is no God."

See.  I can rip random parts of scripture out,  ignore all context, and make it look like it teaches pretty much anything,  too.

What context was left out?

 

[subllibrm]

One of the things that irks me is when people say "you just need more (better/stronger?) faith". The faith of a mustard seed can move mountains. Why would I need "more"?

The power of faith is not in the one who holds the faith but in the One the faith is focused upon. Therefor it is God who can move the mountain, not the faithful man.

 

[FSSL]

...it is a gift from God, but man has to decide whether to receive that gift or reject that gift.

Faith is described as "not of yourselves." Faith is only designed for, and only goes with God's grace. Unsaved man does not have an opportunity to enact on faith. It has never been offered to him.

 

[Mathew Ward]

One of the things that irks me is when people say "you just need more (better/stronger?) faith". The faith of a mustard seed can move mountains. Why would I need "more"?

The power of faith is not in the one who holds the faith but in the One the faith is focused upon. Therefor it is God who can move the mountain, not the faithful man.

Many people have faith in faith instead of faith in God.

 

[rsc2a]

"There is no God."

See.  I can rip random parts of scripture out,  ignore all context, and make it look like it teaches pretty much anything,  too.

What context was left out?

The entire theme of Romans and everything that Paul says about about justification / God's righteousness.  The actual definition of "gospel". Any first-century Jewish understanding at all. The "so what" the original audience would have asked.  Should I continue?

 

[Mathew Ward]

...it is a gift from God, but man has to decide whether to receive that gift or reject that gift.

Faith is described as "not of yourselves." Faith is only designed for, and only goes with God's grace. Unsaved man does not have an opportunity to enact on faith. It has never been offered to him.

How do you know that faith has never been offered to an unsaved man?

Could it have been offered and he has rejected the offer?

 

[Mathew Ward]

"There is no God."

See.  I can rip random parts of scripture out,  ignore all context, and make it look like it teaches pretty much anything,  too.

What context was left out?

The entire theme of Romans and everything that Paul says about about justification / God's righteousness.  The actual definition of "gospel". Any first-century Jewish understanding at all. The "so what" the original audience would have asked.  Should I continue?

When discussing Romans 1:16-17, you indicated that he ripped this portion out of context. Meaning that the context of these verses were left off on purpose in order to make his point. This doesn't seem to be the case.

You listed a lot about interpretation, not context.

 

[subllibrm]

...it is a gift from God, but man has to decide whether to receive that gift or reject that gift.

Faith is described as "not of yourselves." Faith is only designed for, and only goes with God's grace. Unsaved man does not have an opportunity to enact on faith. It has never been offered to him.

How do you know that faith has never been offered to an unsaved man?

Could it have been offered and he has rejected the offer?

That happens everyday. Someone, somewhere shares the gospel and the truth is rejected.

 

[rsc2a]

"There is no God."

See.  I can rip random parts of scripture out,  ignore all context, and make it look like it teaches pretty much anything,  too.

What context was left out?

The entire theme of Romans and everything that Paul says about about justification / God's righteousness.  The actual definition of "gospel". Any first-century Jewish understanding at all. The "so what" the original audience would have asked.  Should I continue?

When discussing Romans 1:16-17, you indicated that he ripped this portion out of context. Meaning that the context of these verses were left off on purpose in order to make his point. This doesn't seem to be the case.

You listed a lot about interpretation, not context.

Maybe you can show where the items I called into question are not contextually important to the two verses in question?

 

[Mathew Ward]

"There is no God."

See.  I can rip random parts of scripture out,  ignore all context, and make it look like it teaches pretty much anything,  too.

What context was left out?

The entire theme of Romans and everything that Paul says about about justification / God's righteousness.  The actual definition of "gospel". Any first-century Jewish understanding at all. The "so what" the original audience would have asked.  Should I continue?

When discussing Romans 1:16-17, you indicated that he ripped this portion out of context. Meaning that the context of these verses were left off on purpose in order to make his point. This doesn't seem to be the case.

You listed a lot about interpretation, not context.

Maybe you can show where the items I called into question are not contextually important to the two verses in question?

Here is YOUR claim..."See.  I can rip random parts of scripture out,  ignore all context, and make it look like it teaches pretty much anything,  too."

I asked you what context was left out?

Let me phase it another way for you.  Because he left off verse 18 does that change the meaning of these verses? Because he didn't include verses 8-15 does that change the meaning of these verses?

 

[rsc2a]

"There is no God."

See.  I can rip random parts of scripture out,  ignore all context, and make it look like it teaches pretty much anything,  too.

What context was left out?

The entire theme of Romans and everything that Paul says about about justification / God's righteousness.  The actual definition of "gospel". Any first-century Jewish understanding at all. The "so what" the original audience would have asked.  Should I continue?

When discussing Romans 1:16-17, you indicated that he ripped this portion out of context. Meaning that the context of these verses were left off on purpose in order to make his point. This doesn't seem to be the case.

You listed a lot about interpretation, not context.

Maybe you can show where the items I called into question are not contextually important to the two verses in question?

Here is YOUR claim..."See.  I can rip random parts of scripture out,  ignore all context, and make it look like it teaches pretty much anything,  too."

I asked you what context was left out?

Let me phase it another way for you.  Because he left off verse 18 does that change the meaning of these verses? Because he didn't include verses 8-15 does that change the meaning of these verses?

Because he ignored the context (for example,  all those things I listed), he's come up with this theory that "the gospel", (in other words, "news that is good")  has some intrinsic ability to cause regeneration instead of what it actually is: the revelation of what God has done for us through the Christ.

As we acknowledge and accept that revelation (by the enabling power of the Spirit), we grow to trust (i.e. have faith) God more and more (i.e. Salvation).

The revelation is just that: revelatory, not transformative just as news that smoking causes cancer doesn't prevent anything. It is only by responding to that news that change is affected.

This other idea... it's pagan and tantamount to witchcraft.  "Just say this spell and gain power."

 

[christundivided]

...it is a gift from God, but man has to decide whether to receive that gift or reject that gift.

Faith is described as "not of yourselves." Faith is only designed for, and only goes with God's grace. Unsaved man does not have an opportunity to enact on faith. It has never been offered to him.

Provide evidence. What you say doesn't mean anything without evidence.

 

[christundivided]

...it is a gift from God, but man has to decide whether to receive that gift or reject that gift.

Faith is described as "not of yourselves." Faith is only designed for, and only goes with God's grace. Unsaved man does not have an opportunity to enact on faith. It has never been offered to him.

How do you know that faith has never been offered to an unsaved man?

Could it have been offered and he has rejected the offer?

Ephesians 2.8 says that faith is a grace-thing. Do unsaved people receive this grace?

Do you know what the word "through" means? You're adding to what the Scriptures say.

 

[christundivided]

"There is no God."

See.  I can rip random parts of scripture out,  ignore all context, and make it look like it teaches pretty much anything,  too.

What context was left out?

The entire theme of Romans and everything that Paul says about about justification / God's righteousness.  The actual definition of "gospel". Any first-century Jewish understanding at all. The "so what" the original audience would have asked.  Should I continue?

When discussing Romans 1:16-17, you indicated that he ripped this portion out of context. Meaning that the context of these verses were left off on purpose in order to make his point. This doesn't seem to be the case.

You listed a lot about interpretation, not context.

Maybe you can show where the items I called into question are not contextually important to the two verses in question?

Here is YOUR claim..."See.  I can rip random parts of scripture out,  ignore all context, and make it look like it teaches pretty much anything,  too."

I asked you what context was left out?

Let me phase it another way for you.  Because he left off verse 18 does that change the meaning of these verses? Because he didn't include verses 8-15 does that change the meaning of these verses?

Because he ignored the context (for example,  all those things I listed), he's come up with this theory that "the gospel", (in other words, "news that is good")  has some intrinsic ability to cause regeneration instead of what it actually is: the revelation of what God has done for us through the Christ.

As we acknowledge and accept that revelation (by the enabling power of the Spirit), we grow to trust (i.e. have faith) God more and more (i.e. Salvation).

The revelation is just that: revelatory, not transformative just as news that smoking causes cancer doesn't prevent anything. It is only by responding to that news that change is affected.

This other idea... it's pagan and tantamount to witchcraft.  "Just say this spell and gain power."

I never said such a thing. Why are lying? I never said that the Gospel "regenerates". Never. Not one place. You blathering liar.